JBC v Chavez
The use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal and
1. The case is in relation to the process of selecting the nominees for the vacant seat
of Supreme Court Chief Justice following Renato Corona’s departure.
2. Prompted by the clamor to rid the process of appointments to the Judiciary of the
evils of political pressure and partisan activities, the members of the Constitutional
Commission saw it wise to create a separate, competent and independent body to
recommend nominees to the President.
a. Section 8. (1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of
the Supreme Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
3. From the moment of the creation of the JBC, Congress designated one (1)
representative to sit in the JBC to act as one of the ex-officio members. Pursuant to
the constitutional provision that Congress is entitled to one (1) representative, each
House sent a representative to the JBC, not together, but alternately or by
rotation.
4. In 1994, the seven-member composition of the JBC was substantially altered. An
eighth member was added to the JBC as the two (2) representatives from Congress
began sitting simultaneously in the JBC, with each having one- half (1/2) of a vote.
5. In 2001, the JBC En Banc decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and
the House of Representatives one full vote each. It has been the situation since
then.
6. During the existence of the case, Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and
Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr. (respondents) simultaneously sat in JBC as
representatives of the legislature. It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in
this petition.
7. Respondents argued:
a. that allowing only one representative from Congress in the JBC would
lead to absurdity considering its bicameral nature;
i. IWO, the HOR without the Senate and vice-versa is NOT
Congress.
b. Failure of the Framers to make the proper adjustment when there was a
shift from unilateralism to bicameralism was a plain oversight
c. The allowance of two (2) representatives of Congress to be members of
the JBC does not render the latter’s purpose nugatory.
i. While they admit that the purpose in creating the JBC was to
insulate appointments to the Judiciary from political influence,
ii. In fact, the presence of two (2) members from Congress will
most likely provide balance as against the other six (6) members
who are undeniably presidential appointees.
ISSUE: Whether the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as provided in
Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution? UNCONSTITUTIONAL
HELD:
leaves no room for any other construction. Had it been the intention that more than one (1)
representative from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no
uncertain terms, so provided.
 Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation
 Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.
Every meaning to be given to each word or phrase must be ascertained from the context of
the body of the statute since a word or phrase in a statute is always used in association with
other words or phrases and its meaning may be modified or restricted by the latter.
 Here, the word “Congress” used in Article VIII, Section 8(1) of the Constitution is
used in its generic sense.
 “from the enumeration of the membership of the JBC, it is patent that each
category of members pertained to a single individual only.
 Considering that the language of the subject constitutional provision is plain and
unambiguous, there is no need to resort extrinsic aids such as records of the
Constitutional Commission.
It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary
function in government – to legislate.
 In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of
each house in the process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers.
 An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these
powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
 This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term
“Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative department. The
Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.
Also, he seven-member composition of the JBC serves a practical purpose, to provide a
solution should there be a stalemate in voting
 This unsanctioned practice can possibly cause disorder and eventually muddle the
JBC’s voting process, especially in the event a tie is reached.
 It is sensible to presume that they knew that an odd composition is the best means
to break a voting deadlock.
Thru oversight:
 The unmistakeable tenor of Article VIII, Section 8(1) was to treat each ex-officio
member as representing one co-equal branch of government.
 The representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives act as such for
one branch and should not have any more quantitative influence as the other
branches in the exercise of prerogatives evenly bestowed upon the three.
Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its This disposition is immediately executory.
prior official actions are nonetheless valid. Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions
previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not
nullified.

 As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it

imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if
it has not been passed at all.
o This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of operative facts,
 actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally
recognized. They are not nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair
play.

 The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a
matter of equity and fair play.
o It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an
operative fact and may have consequences which cannot always be
ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
o The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will
impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
o Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would
put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance upon a law
creating it.

 Considering the circumstances, the Court finds the exception applicable in

this case and holds that notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality
in the current composition of the JBC, all its prior official actions are
nonetheless valid.

Note:
 It is not in a position to determine as to who should remain as the sole
representative of Congress in the JBC. This is a matter beyond the province of the
Court and is best left to the determination of Congress.

Note:
 Regular members: a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a
retired member of the Court and a representative from the private sector. On the
second part lies the crux of the present controversy.
 Ex-officio or special members: Chief Justice, who shall be its Chairman, the
Secretary of Justice and “a representative of Congress.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The current numerical composition of the Judicial and
Bar Council IS declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby enjoined
to reconstitute itself so that only one (1) member of Congress will sit as a representative in its
proceedings, in accordance with Section 8(1), Article VI II of the 1987 Constitution.
In 1994
 instead of having only 7 members, an eighth member was added to the JBC as two
representatives from Congress began sitting in the JBC – one from the House of
Representatives and one from the Senate, with each having one-half (1/2) of a
vote.
Then, the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings held in 2000 and 2001:
 decided to allow the representatives from the Senate and the House of
Representatives one full vote each.
 Senator Francis Joseph G. Escudero and Congressman Niel C. Tupas, Jr.
(respondents) simultaneously sit in the JBC as representatives of the legislature.
 An inter-play between the two houses is necessary in the realization of these
powers causing a vivid dichotomy that the Court cannot simply discount.
 This, however, cannot be said in the case of JBC representation because no liaison
between the two houses exists in the workings of the JBC. Hence, the term
“Congress” must be taken to mean the entire legislative department. The
Constitution mandates that the JBC be composed of seven (7) members only.
Notwithstanding its finding of unconstitutionality in the current composition of the JBC, all its
prior official actions are nonetheless valid. Under the doctrine of operative facts, actions
previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not
nullified.

It is this practice that petitioner has questioned in this petition.
 Respondents argued that the crux of the controversy is the phrase “a representative
of Congress.”
o It is their theory that the two houses, the Senate and the House of
Representatives, are permanent and mandatory components of
“Congress,” such that the absence of either divests the term of its
substantive meaning as expressed under the Constitution.
o Bicameralism, as the system of choice by the Framers, requires that both
houses exercise their respective powers in the performance of its
mandated duty which is to legislate.
o Thus, when Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution speaks of “a
representative from Congress,” it should mean one representative each
from both Houses which comprise the entire Congress.
ISSUE: Whether the JBC’s practice of having members from the Senate and the House of
Representatives making 8 instead of 7 sitting members to be unconstitutional as provided in
Art VIII Sec 8 of the constitution? UNCONSTITUTIONAL
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no
duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
passed at all. This rule, however, is not absolute. Under the doctrine of operative facts,
actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally recognized. They are not
nullified. This is essential in the interest of fair play.
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of
equity and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the
existence of a statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and
may have consequences which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased
by a new judicial declaration. The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of
unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid
law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would
put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in
reliance upon a law creating it.

HELD:
The use of the singular letter “a” preceding “representative of Congress” is unequivocal and
leaves no room for any other construction. It is indicative of what the members of the
Constitutional Commission had in mind, that is, Congress may designate only one (1)
representative to the JBC. Had it been the intention that more than one (1) representative
from the legislature would sit in the JBC, the Framers could have, in no uncertain terms, so
provided.
 Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation
 Verba legis non est recedendum – from the words of a statute there should be no
departure.

It is evident that the definition of “Congress” as a bicameral body refers to its primary
function in government – to legislate.
 In the passage of laws, the Constitution is explicit in the distinction of the role of
each house in the process. The same holds true in Congress’ non-legislative powers.
SECTION 8. (1) A JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL IS HEREBY CREATED UNDER THE SUPERVISION
OF THE SUPREME COURT COMPOSED OF:
1. The Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman,
2. The Secretary of Justice, and
3. A representative of the Congress as ex officio Members,
4. A representative of the Integrated Bar,
5. A professor of law,
6. A retired Member of the Supreme Court, an
7. A representative of the private sector.

The Constitution provides for the creation of the Judicial and Bar Council (“JBC”) which shall
have the principal function of recommending to the President the appointees to the
Judiciary.
 The JBC shall submit to the President a list of at least three nominees for every
vacancy from which he may select a person of his choice. Such appointments need
no confirmation.
 For the lower courts:
o the President shall issue the appointments within 90 days from the
submission of the list
 while any vacancy in the Supreme Court:
o must be filled within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.